Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

So that they will become raisins.

I.e., although they become moist from the juice that oozes from the grapes, they do not become susceptible to impurity, for, as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 1, that change in status comes about only when the owner desires that the foods come in contact with the liquids.

Shabbat 15a states that this is the opinion of Shammai. Hillel, however, originally did not accept this stringency. Nevertheless, after Shammai forcefully presented his arguments, Hillel remained silent, leading to the conclusion that he accepted Shammai’s position. This is one of the 18 stringencies decreed on the day the students of the School of Shammai outnumbered the students of the School of Hillel.

Thus the owner will have intentionally exposed them to contact with liquids.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s interpretation and offers a different rationale. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s understanding.

I.e., because this is a common occurrence when harvesting grapes for the sake of their juice.

And crush them for their juice.

Then, however, they become susceptible to impurity whether they are known to have come in contact with liquids or not.

The commentaries have raised questions regarding the Rambam’s intent. In Halachah 12, he states that olives may be brought to an olive-press by a person who is ritually impure. However, that halachah can be interpreted as meaning that the impure person may bring the olives to the press, but not into the press. See Halachah 13.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 10:4).

The leaves collect the juice and afterwards, he casts the grapes and the leaves together into the wine press.

And will collect the juice.

To dry and become raisins [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 10:4)].

As evident from the fact that he allows it to go to waste.

Even if they were made susceptible to ritual impurity previously.

Since the person desired to partake of the grapes rather than use them for wine, the juice dripping from them is not significant. It is considered like other fruit juices and does not contract or impart impurity (see Chapter 10, Halachah 1).

A Talmudic measure, approximately, 8-9 liter according to Shiurei Torah.

Since this juice was originally not considered significant and therefore considered as fruit juice, its status does not change when the grapes are cast into the wine press.
The Ra’avad challenges the Rambam’s ruling, noting—as the Rambam himself states in Halachah 1—that when grapes are cast into a winepress, they immediately become susceptible to ritual impurity. The Kessef Mishneh resolves the contradiction, explaining that Halachah 1 is speaking about an instance where the grapes were harvested for the purpose of being pressed for wine. In such a situation, our Sages decreed that they be considered susceptible to ritual impurity. In this instance, by contrast, they were harvested to be eaten. When the person finished eating, as an afterthought, as it were, he cast them into the wine press. Hence, until they actually enter the wine press, they are considered as food and their juice, insignificant. Our Sages saw no need to institute a decree regarding such an instance.

Such a situation is included in the decree mentioned in Halachah 1, for the person changed his mind and consciously desired that the grapes be used to produce wine.

A field which contained a grave and was plowed over, possibly strewing pieces of bone throughout the field. Such a field is impure by Rabbinic decree lest the person unknowingly come in contact with a bone from the corpse (Hilchot Tum'at Meit 2:16; see also ibid., ch. 10).

As stated in Halachah 1.

At which point, however, they are considered susceptible to impurity.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that grapes growing in a beit hapras can never be considered as ritually pure. Instead, they are always considered as impure because of the doubt concerning their status; perhaps one of the workers had contracted impurity. Although the advice the Rambam gives has its source in the Mishnah (Ohalot 18:10), the Ra’avad maintains that the mishnah did not intend that the grapes and the wine should be considered as pure. Instead, the purification of the workers and the utensils was so that produce growing in Eretz Yisrael would not be made impure intentionally (see Chapter 16, Halachah 9). The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam had a different — and equally valid — understanding of the mishnah. Hence, his ruling should not be rejected.

Lest they had contracted the impurity associated with a human corpse.

When that purification process will have been completed.

Since it is not known with certainty that the workers in that field will come in contact with a corpse, our Sages granted a leniency and allowed the produce in such a field to be harvested. Lest that leniency be extended undesirably, they had the workers immerse themselves beforehand to impress them and others with the concept of the field’s impurity.

The workers themselves are not allowed to take the grapes further, for carrying them will impart impurity to them, since both Rabbinic decrees are in effect outside the beit hapras. The leniency granted previously was granted only inside the beit hapras, because there was no alternative.

Therefore, it is permitted to harvest olives even though one’s hands are impure, as stated in Shabbat 15a, Pesachim 3b.

In Halachah 8, the Rambam explains when the work to harvest olives is considered to be completed.

This does not refer to the oil, but a thin, black liquid that flows out from the olives when they are under slight pressure from each other [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 2:1)].

I.e., the owner seeks to add more olives to be pressed.

If the olives soften this early, they will be damaged by the time they are ready to be pressed.

I.e., as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 13, when impure liquids fall on foods, the foods’ susceptibility to impurity and their contraction of impurity take place simultaneously. Nevertheless, we do not say that the fluid that oozed from the olives connects them all, causing them to be considered a single entity, as stated in the following clause.

As stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 13.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Eduyot 4:6).

By making a hole to enable the fluid to flow out, he indicates that he is not interested in it. Therefore, even though the olives come in contact with it, the contact is considered to be against his will. Hence it does not make them susceptible to ritual impurity.

The fact that he did not make such a hole when he knew that liquid would flow from the olives indicates that he desired the olives to come in contact with that liquid. As Eduyot 4:6 relates, this is one of the few instances where the School of Shammai rule leniently and the School of Hillel rule stringently. Nevertheless, even when they are more stringent, the halachah follows the School of Hillel.

I.e., it collected in the jug because the drainage hole was plugged.

The commentaries have noted a slight contradiction in the Rambam’s statements, for in Halachah 6 [and in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 9:1], he states that the olives are given this status, because of the fluid which flows from them, while here, he implies that the Sages ordained that the change in their status comes as a result of the decision the person made.

A relatively small measure, 1376 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 2400 cc according to Chazon Ish.

For he has not completed gathering all the olives he desires to press.

In truth, he had completed harvesting his olives. Nevertheless, he desired to delay pressing them and did not want them to be susceptible to impurity in the interim. Therefore he states an intent to purchase more olives, solely to prevent this change in halachic status from taking place. Since his intent is not sincere, even if in fact he purchases the other olives, his olives become susceptible to ritual impurity from the time he completed his original harvest.

I.e., individuals who are primary sources of ritual impurity.

Which he intended to press separately.

And does not want to add any more olives to it.

Because the work involved in their preparation has been completed.

And places them in a storage vat, as explained in Halachah 8.

The Galilee refers to the northern portion of Eretz Yisrael. It is divided into a lower portion — the area between the cities of Haifa and Tiberias — and an upper portion — the mountainous region north of those cities. Both of these areas are very fertile and were used for growing olives.

As stated in Halachah 6.

Covering them with leaves protects them from sand and/or rain. Though the owner completed storing the olives, one might think that they do not become susceptible to ritual impurity since he intends to perform another task. Nevertheless, since the work involving the olives themselves is completed once they are collected and stored, they become susceptible to impurity from that point onward.

This bracketed addition is. made on the basis of the gloss of Rabbenu Shimshon to Taharot 9:2.

We do not say that the presence of the olives indicates that the gentile had not completed filling his storage vat with olives (and hence they did not contract impurity, as stated in Halachah 8). Instead, we assume that he intended to fill another vat with the remaining olives. Needless to say, this law applies if he has no other olives to harvest.

Gentiles are considered as ritually impure according to Rabbinic decree. Hence, since the gentile completed storing his olives in the vat, they are considered to have become susceptible to ritual impurity and to have contracted ritual impurity. Accordingly, there is no longer any purpose in keeping any of the strictures involving ritual purity in the preparation of oil from them.

This statement is very significant. An unlearned person is assumed to be impure. Nevertheless, as long as the olives are not susceptible to ritual impurity, his status is of no consequence. Now, as long as the harvest and storing of the olives is not completed, the olives do not become susceptible to ritual impurity. Hence, by saying that he did not complete the storing of the olives, he is in actuality saying that they are still ritually pure. Otherwise, they would be considered as impure. Although the unlearned person stands to benefit from such a statement — for olives that are ritually pure are more valuable than those that are not — his word is accepted.

But not inside the olive press. Once they are brought into the olive press, they become susceptible to impurity, as stated in Halachah 2.

As stated in Halachah 8.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 9:5).

Hence, they do not become susceptible to impurity because the owner does not desire the liquid that flows from them.

Our translation is taken from Rav Kappach’s version of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.). The intent is to soften them somewhat. Since ultimately, the person desires their oil, he is also happy with the liquid that flows from them. Hence, they become susceptible to impurity and contract impurity from the person’s hands.

This represents the Rambam’s addition to the mishnah (ibid.). Were the olives to be ordinary food, hands that are a second derivative of impurity would not make them impure. Others interpret the mishnah differently.

I.e., he is ritually, pure, but his hands are impure by Rabbinic decree, because he diverted his attention from them. They are considered as a second derivative of impurity, as stated in Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTuma’ah 8:2.

Since his hands are a secondary derivative, food that he touches becomes a tertiary derivative, which -with regard to terumah — contracts impurity itself, but does not impart it to other substances.

When the olives are broken open, the fluid inside of them enables the salt to cling to them more thoroughly. The Rambam is emphasizing that although there is a certain amount of fluid inside the olives, it does not make them susceptible to ritual impurity.

For he is not interested in the liquid that oozes from them.

Since there are so many olives there, the bottom ones will certainly not dry out. Nevertheless, since his intent is that they dry out, they do not become susceptible to impurity [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 9:6)].

They are being dried out to be eaten, as is customary in certain places. As such, the owner does not desire the moisture that oozes from them. Hence, it does not make them susceptible to impurity. The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s interpretation of the above mishnah. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam’s interpretation.

So they will soften.

Since he desired that they become soft, even though ultimately he will dry them, he desires that their liquids ooze out and soften them. Hence the liquids make them susceptible to impurity [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 9:6)].

Generally, produce left in the domain of an unlearned person is considered impure by Rabbinic decree. Even if the unlearned person does not know that he came in contact with impurity, we fear that he did and imparted that impurity to the produce. In this instance, however, since the owner locked and sealed the door, they do not contract impurity, because they are not accessible to the unlearned person.

We do not suspect that the unlearned person broke the lock and entered. Instead, we assume that thieves broke the seal, but then changed their minds and did not enter. See Hilchot Metam’ei Mishkav UMoshav 12:4, 15. Needless to say, if it is obvious that someone has tampered with the olives, they are impure.

I.e., placed in a manner that if the door was opened they would be moved and the person’s entrance detected.

Unless the windows are closed and sealed, the olives are considered to be in the domain of the unlearned person and therefore impure.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 10:8), the Rambam explains that there are borders—apparently of wood or stone—that are placed around olives when they are pressed to keep them collected in one place, instead of spreading out because of the pressure.
Although the Rambam’s source speaks about olives and an olivepress, similar laws apply with regard to grapes and a winepress. See Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 11:24.

That is sufficient to purge any impure liquids.

Our translation reflects the version found in authentic manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah and is supported by Avodah Zarah 75a. The standard printed text has a different version that is slightly problematic.

This refers to a type of reed with a resinous substance that was used somewhat like rubber. Keilim made from this type of reeds do not dry easily [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 10:8)].

During which they will dry from exposure to the air (ibid.).

For the hot water will purge them of the impure liquids that they absorbed (ibid.).

See Rashi, Avodah Zarah, op. cit.

This will purge them of any traces of impure liquid. The mishnah (op. cit.) mentions this option in the name of Rabbi Yossi. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam states that the halachah does not follow Rabbi Yossi’s view. Here, the Rambam obviously retracted that ruling. Or, as could be inferred from the Rambam’s wording there, Rabbi Yossi was speaking about immersing the keilim briefly and here, the Rambam is speaking about exposure for a prolonged period.

The previous measures were not intended to purify the keilim, merely to remove traces of impure liquids that might be on the keilim. To purify the keilim, immersion is required.

This excludes flat wooden keilim and stone keilim that are not susceptible to ritual impurity.